That is just a form of words - she also says "I think" that it would require legislation for her not to be queen, but we all know that is definite. It is equally definite that she will be known as HRH the Princess Consort. "Intended" means there's wiggle room - but my point is Charles has to use that wiggle room to put this right!

The whole point is that she was only a spokesperson, who admitted she didn't know, so to 'cover' her non answer she used the 'I think', I'm surprised she didn't also use the 'as far as we know', which is another favourite. Had she been a constitutional expert speaking on behalf of Charles and Camilla, it might have been different. She was only a civil servant who had been asked questions to which she gave ambiguous answers, a spin doctor in training.

As for Lady Louise, the title already exists, the daughter of an earl is almost always (unless she chooses not to use it) called Lady ????. The title Princess Consort does not exist, so I think it is not possible to say it is definate she will be called the Princess Consort.

If Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations agree, then the King can issue letters patent taking care of it. But not without legally removing her superior rank as HM The Queen with legislation. You cannot be a princess of the UK if you are Queen.

out of interest, why do you argue that you cannot be a Princess of the UK in your own right, and queen consort by marriage? I would suppose issues of morganatic marriage would be solved by making her an own-right princess and using her own right title instead of her married one. A reveral of the Reine Dauphine title of Mary Queen of Scots on her first marriage.

Huge banquet, 100's of guests, we have had the majority of the 12 courses and are waiting for desert, cheese and biscuits, the port..... The toastmaster stands and bangs the table to get our attention and says ..

Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, pray raise your glasses in a toast to King Charles and Queen Camilla, also known as Camilla the Princess Consort, also known as Mrs Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, also known as the former Mrs Parker Bowles, also known as Bozo ....

It boggles the mind!

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

out of interest, why do you argue that you cannot be a Princess of the UK in your own right, and queen consort by marriage? I would suppose issues of morganatic marriage would be solved by making her an own-right princess and using her own right title instead of her married one. A reveral of the Reine Dauphine title of Mary Queen of Scots on her first marriage.

Camilla is not a princess of the UK in her own right as it is only held through marriage to The Prince of Wales. However, once Charles is King, she is automatically HM The Queen in her own right and only Parliament can remove her rank and precedence.

This is why the matter is very complicated in a legal and constitutional sense and the precedents must be approved by Parliament. She is Queen Camilla and nothing else. She cannot be styled as a princess of the UK unless legislation is passed allowing it.

I think the Palace and Clarence House engaged in some fast-footed PR when they made the announcement about the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort.

It was a successful campaign this time but now due to the extensive parliamentary wranglings the whole country knows that Camilla will actually be Queen when Charles ascends the throne (unlike the situation when they announced she would be Duchess of Cornwall) so do you really think that the British public is going to accept the story that Camilla is just Princess Consort?

Their PR and implementation machine isn't perfect; they announced they were having a civil wedding in Windsor Castle before they realized that everybody within a mile would be able to get married there for three months.

__________________"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."

Perhaps you mistake my meaning. I am pretty well versed in titles. I was correct on the King Consort situation, and you were mistaken when you suggested British queens regnant could not raise their husbands to the rank of King Consort - it happened both in England and in Scotland.

I do know she is a princess by marriage. i have repeatedly suggested to you in prior posts that Charles as King could create her a princess in her own right - I know she is not one now. Philip was created a Prince in his own right. A prior King promoted his granddaughters, commoners, to Princesses of GB in their own right. There is nothing whatever to stop the King as fount of honour making Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right just as his father was made a Prince, with the style and title of HRH the Princess Consort, and the queen (as she would automatically be by marriage) then choosing to use the new title newly conferred upon her sua juris. Surely this would solve all morganatic questions. Am in favour of such a plan? Of course not. And I am not in favour of her being known as the Duchess of Cornwall, either. Nonetheless, it would work, keep to the plan, and eliminate the need for legislation.

Ysbel,

Quote:

It was a successful campaign this time but now due to the extensive parliamentary wranglings the whole country knows that Camilla will actually be Queen when Charles ascends the throne (unlike the situation when they announced she would be Duchess of Cornwall) so do you really think that the British public is going to accept the story that Camilla is just Princess Consort?

I would hope not. Unfortunately, the longer every official source (the RF .gov website, the PoW website, the Dept. of Constitutional Affairs) keeps reiterating that she will be PC, the more certain it is to happen. People on trf who think everybody will say "Whoops! Our bad, she will be known as HM the Q" are, I believe, deceiving themselves. One thing both politicians and princes hate is looking stupid.

I think it is VERY significant that she is presently known only as the DoC. It is an outrage. It is a breach of hundreds of years of precedent. It has never happened before. People do not use lower titles.

If this can happen now I think it certain that the PC thing can happen.

Do you really mean to compare the next queen of Britain with a left-wing labour politician when it comes to the use of titles? Plus: Tony Benn inherited a title which had been created for his father to help labour gain more influence in the "old" House of Lords. While he obviously prefered to be active in the House of Commons. So not using his title makes sense while with Camilla I think it's pretty weird and not proper at all!

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

Do you really mean to compare the next queen of Britain with a left-wing labour politician when it comes to the use of titles?

Sorry Jo, he was the only one I could think of that might be known to most people and goodness knows he needs the publicity. I do know a few, not so well known who do not use their titles but would not appreciate their names published on here!

I am confident that Camilla will be called, known as etc HRH Queen Camilla and I don't believe myself to be one iota deceived!

I do know a few, not so well known who do not use their titles but would not appreciate their names published on here!

How about Lady Thatcher, wife of baronet Sir Denis Thatcher? She did insist on being mere "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher", didn't she? Well, at least from 1991 (creation of Denis Thatcher as 1st Baronet) to 1992 (her own creation as Baroness Thatcher).... Or did she use the title of Lady Thatcher from 1991?

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

There is nothing whatever to stop the King as fount of honour making Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right just as his father was made a Prince, with the style and title of HRH the Princess Consort, and the queen (as she would automatically be by marriage) then choosing to use the new title newly conferred upon her sua juris. Surely this would solve all morganatic questions.

The Crown may not act contrary to constitutional precedent or law without being so advised by The Prime Minister. Parliament is Sovereign, not the King. The issue of Camilla's rank, title and style once Charles becomes King is automatic in law. Any deviation requires parliamentary review and consent.

If Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth agree, they can pass legislation stating Camilla will not hold the rank, title and precedence of Queen Consort. At that point, the King is free to issue letters patent creating her a Princess of the UK.

Well, that wasn't so much using a lower title as not using it at all. But most of the lower titles of the nobility are used by their eldest sons as courtesy titles so it would just be confusing for the dukes and earls themselves to use them.

I think the Duchess of Cornwall title was pretty well inevitable if they didn't want a major public-relations backlash; however, this Princess Consort stuff seemed somewhat ill advised and not very well thought through.

How about Lady Thatcher, wife of baronet Sir Denis Thatcher? She did insist on being mere "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher", didn't she? Well, at least from 1991 (creation of Denis Thatcher as 1st Baronet) to 1992 (her own creation as Baroness Thatcher).... Or did she use the title of Lady Thatcher from 1991?

I think it was interesting that she did not want a hereditary peerage for herself.

The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher from 04.02.1991 to 26.06.1992
The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher from 26.06.1992 to present day.

I think it was interesting that she did not want a hereditary peerage for herself.

The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher from 04.02.1991 to 26.06.1992
The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher from 26.06.1992 to present day.

Probably she knew her son better than anyone else and thought that "Sir Mark Thatcher" was simply enough. For anybody.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

LONDON (AFP) - The coronation of Britain's Prince Charles could incorporate faiths other than Christianity in a break with tradition, a senior church official set to be involved in drawing up plans said.

One question that does spring to mind is what will we be if he becomes Charles III? I mean, at the moment we're Elizabethans. If he became Edward, we'd be Edwardians. If he became George, we'd be Georgians. So, what will we be if he sticks with Charles?